Using a fan

[spaightlabs]

I'm going out to Nebraska 2 weeks from today for a 3 day hunt.

I have 3 tags, so does my partner.

I'm going to do what I have to do to fill my tags.  All of it will be legal. 

Gonna start in the AM with a hen and jake deke and use available cover for a hide, or set up a double bull if the weather is poor.  I set my dekes at 7 yards.  It's John Elway's number and we live in Colorado, so it's a natural.  Plus if they lock up at 30 yards from the deke it's still a good shot. 

After the first hour we will run and gun. 

If we see a bird that is in the middle of a huge field and calling isn't doing it, we will probably break out a fan and give it a try. 

Gotta keep moving so we have a bit of time to get over to Lake Mac - the walleye fishing is on and cracking right now at the dam.

My intention is to have fun and work some turks. 

My wife thinks using calls is unfair.  She thinks it is like my buddies calling me up and inviting me to one of those bars where half-nekkid girls dance around on stages with poles to 'Pour Some Sugar On Me' and then having someone shoot me in the melon when I get to the front door.

Question for the holier than thou folks:  It's about a 4 hour drive to where we are going.  Is it ok to drive out there or do I need to go 'old school' and take the prairie schooner?  If we have to take the covered wagon to be legit, how do you recommend we hook up the Sirius Radio so we can listen to The Highway on the way out?

Hope everyone has a great season.  Remember, don't take yourself too seriously - no one else does.

[Gooserbat]

I'll do it as long as it's not on public land.  It's another tool in the tool chest.  I don't think you have to bowhunting with a longbow and cedar arrows nor fish with a bamboo flyrod.  I'm not an elitest, I'm a turkey hunter who is going to use every legal thing I can to get my birds.  Now I had rather call them but some birdes for what ever reason won't so then I'll pull out all the stops.

[Bill Cooksey]

I'm going out to Nebraska 2 weeks from today for a 3 day hunt.

I have 3 tags, so does my partner.

I'm going to do what I have to do to fill my tags.  All of it will be legal. 

Gonna start in the AM with a hen and jake deke and use available cover for a hide, or set up a double bull if the weather is poor.  I set my dekes at 7 yards.  It's John Elway's number and we live in Colorado, so it's a natural.  Plus if they lock up at 30 yards from the deke it's still a good shot. 

After the first hour we will run and gun. 

If we see a bird that is in the middle of a huge field and calling isn't doing it, we will probably break out a fan and give it a try. 

Gotta keep moving so we have a bit of time to get over to Lake Mac - the walleye fishing is on and cracking right now at the dam.

My intention is to have fun and work some turks. 

My wife thinks using calls is unfair.  She thinks it is like my buddies calling me up and inviting me to one of those bars where half-nekkid girls dance around on stages with poles to 'Pour Some Sugar On Me' and then having someone shoot me in the melon when I get to the front door.

Question for the holier than thou folks:  It's about a 4 hour drive to where we are going.  Is it ok to drive out there or do I need to go 'old school' and take the prairie schooner?  If we have to take the covered wagon to be legit, how do you recommend we hook up the Sirius Radio so we can listen to The Highway on the way out?

Hope everyone has a great season.  Remember, don't take yourself too seriously - no one else does.

Spaight,
Here's an insider tip. If you're using only a fan, turn the back toward the turkey. It seems to help if they don't expect to see the head. Good luck on your trip.

[spaightlabs]

Thanks Bill!

I've used the old fan in times of need before.   

Going up with the winning team's guide from your World Goose Hunting Championship to hunt with another buddy who was also our guide on the 2nd place team.  Good old days.

[sixbird]

Personally I wouldn't use a fan since I think they're suckers for it for the most part. That said, I have used a wing to generate a little interest. I flash the wing along with calling. It does help a little...
Like others have said, a tail is a visual, like a decoy...I know it doesn't make sense from a purely logical perspective but it seems somehow unfair to use one to me...
I guess everybody uses what he thinks is fair/ethical...It's a personal judgement as long as it's legal...For me, no fan...

[SteelerFan]

EDIT: (Original comment saved for another thread)

Back to OP question: I don't see much difference between that and decoys... BUT, personally, my "line" is drawn with movement with decoys, be it motor, string, or hand. Can't really explain why I think that way, I just do.

[Mabren2]

How did fanning get deemed so successful that it is "disrespectful" to the sport and unethical? Most of those who oppose the method are adamant about never having used it and never will, so where are their statistics coming from? YouTube? Sure if you google it most every video you find is going to show a successful fanning attempt, because who wants to post a video of themselves crawling out into the field and a bird running away? If you've never tried it how can you conclude that it works over 90% of the time? By that logic anyone that watches a TV show could easily conclude that the sport itself is disrespectful to the bird, because all they have to do is pile 3 or 4 guys behind a tree with a couple cameras, make a few calls, watch the bird charge in, then shoot it in the head. They have 3 or 4 of those scenarios to display on every weekly show, so turkey hunting must be like shooting fish in a barrel...

I've not tried it, but I did witness it to an extent once. I met a buddy at lunch one day, and he was telling me that they tried to crawl behind a deke on two gobblers and got busted at 60 yards. I didn't really believe him, because I wasn't familiar with the technique and figured it was another one of his tall tales. We hunted together that afternoon, and late in a very unsuccessful day I challenged him to sneak on a couple hens we saw to call his bluff. Well he did, and he actually got into range (obviously didn't shoot due to legality), so that proved to me that it can work. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of hunters couldn't have cowered behind that deke and duck-walked 200 yards like he did. I know you won't see me doing it! That in itself is far more challenging than sitting on a cushion up against a tree. Furthermore his success rate that day was 0% on gobblers and 50% on turkeys in general. I know several hunters that boast a success rate well above 50% with "old school" tactics, so how is fanning so unfair? (Not a good sample size I know, just further proving my point of relying on hasty generalizations and logical fallacies as "proof".) Not to mention had he killed a bird on that stalk it would have been after walking 3-5 miles on 3 farms over several hours, then executing a physically challenging stalk. Sounds like taking candy from a baby....

I usually pass over these hot topics, but lately there have been several new guys asking innocent questions looking for advice, only to be condemned an unethical, non-steward of the turkey hunting world. It's crazy. There's nothing out there that's going to work 100% of the time. I guess you guys believe in the banjo minnow, too. You'd probably also label my Pawpaw an unethical fisherman because he used worms and "minners" to bring home a mess of fish. The antis and activists love to see division within the hunting world. It just gives them a stronger foothold to further their agenda. Calling legal hunters unethical and disrespectful fuels the same fire that calling a semi-automatic rifle an "assault rifle" does.

My hope is that we can all enjoy this awesome privilege that God has blessed us with. We don't have to agree on what methods we choose to use, but we also don't need to shed negative light on legal hunting methods and give the activists ammunition against us. Hold onto your opinions, that is your right, just choose how you express them carefully. Turkey season is upon us across most of the country right now, I wish you all the best of luck.

[Bill Cooksey]

Seriously though, good discussion.  Especially like that ethics should be more restrictive than law-but shooting a crippled duck while still moving is a great example.  Illegal, but ethical. 

I was making the point that law and ethics don't always equate. Something can be legal yet unethical, at least from one's personal viewpoint. I believe anyone reading this thread can think of examples. The reverse of that is also true. Regardless, ethics are a personal thing, and I'm in no position to judge others who hunt in a legal manner. I've killed birds using a fan, so I certainly can't claim some moral superiority. The fact that I felt I'd done something wrong after the second bird I killed via the method points to it probably being the wrong choice for ME; others could feel differently, and I'm fine with that.

[Bill Cooksey]

And Bill Cooksey, just curious where you are that the bird population is doing so bad? Our population has made a real comeback the last few years after some good hatches. I don't know why the game department for your state would think cutting a season length, or cutting a hunting method, from a season that only targets adult males after they've bred would have any appreciable effect on bird populations. Taking away fall hunting and hen mortality is about the only thing that would bring the population up. Saving one gobbler from reaping only increases the population by one. Not really an effective management plan on a statewide basis, since even if all the gobblers were shot one year it would still be small potatoes for the population. Recruitment is everything with bird management.

I'm in West Tennessee, and let me begin by saying I generally agree with much of what you said. That's why I emphasize the caveat "region." Because of topography, we are very much in a boom/bust hatch region, but that's not as true of Middle and East TN. Their population is far more stable. That said, most of the states bordering me have also experienced a decline over the last several years. Obviously much of that has to do with nest success, but unlike the several decades of turkey population growth, the boom years today don't demonstrate a sustainable recovery.

The nature of my region dictates turkey season could see birds at every stage of breeding on the opener (from still in winter flocks to a hen on a nest), so the majority have not completed the cycle before we are hunting them. It was this way when the population was growing, and it's remained this way during the decline. Now, I'm not claiming our flocks have been decimated, but there's a decline. There is talk among wildlife professionals that the kill will have to be curtailed in the near future if the trend doesn't change. Hunting pressure has increased, and they are of the opinion too many birds are being taken to achieve their goals.

There are several ways to decrease pressure, but most impact your opportunity to hunt. I'd simply prefer to keep opportunity (days) while stopping a very effective technique which has only recently widely caught on; then we can see if it has a positive effect before going the route of our neighbor to the west. Next in my desired actions would be a reduction in the limit in this part of the state, but that's for another thread. I'd simply rather see small incremental measures while the flock is in a position to post a strong rebound in hopes of preventing more drastic measures down the road.

[nosaj]

Seriously though, good discussion.  Especially like that ethics should be more restrictive than law-but shooting a crippled duck while still moving is a great example.  Illegal, but ethical. 

I was making the point that law and ethics don't always equate. Something can be legal yet unethical, at least from one's personal viewpoint. I believe anyone reading this thread can think of examples. The reverse of that is also true. Regardless, ethics are a personal thing, and I'm in no position to judge others who hunt in a legal manner. I've killed birds using a fan, so I certainly can't claim some moral superiority. The fact that I felt I'd done something wrong after the second bird I killed via the method points to it probably being the wrong choice for ME; others could feel differently, and I'm fine with that.

Did you feel it was wrong because it wasn't as challenging or was that it just didn't feel like you were Turkey hunting in the traditional sense?  I am not judging just curious?

[Bill Cooksey]

I don't buy the conservation argument that they may be to effective. Sure the seasons and bag limits were written long before fanning became popular. They were also long before turkey specific shotguns, chokes, and shells even existed. With the right combo of choke and shells, many of today's guns are capable of nearly twice the range of the guns commonly used 30 years ago. Should after market chokes and htl shells be outlawed?  Is it ethical to use a gun capable of killing a bird at 60 yards when the hard part is often getting him to come the last 30 yards?  How about modern camo and blinds. Hunting is constantly evolving sport. If you don't believe me than just compare the camo you wear now to what you wore 20 years ago. The tried and true methods work but someone will always try to find more effective ways. Some succede and some fail but if they would outlaw every "new" method or means of turkey hunting then we would all be out there in our work clothes with no vest, an old call, the same gun we hunt squirrels with.

As one who has been after them for thirty years, 60 yard guns and loads were available then, and there were "turkey specific" guns and loads. Heck, Hevi shot has been around for almost twenty years, and lead is still deadly. Camo is certainly no more effective now than twenty, or even thirty, years ago. Bottomland came out in '86 and is still as good as anything we have, and Treebark was out before that, and I could have killed every bird I've ever shot while wearing WWII camo.

I do think it is incumbent upon hunters (we advocated for the laws to begin with) to evaluate new methods and consider when they might tip the scales to "additive mortality." I believe that is happening where I hunt, but I'm certain it's not in issue in most regions. That said, if a sportsman believes he's witnessing additive mortality, the right thing to do is talk about it, at a minimum.

Where I am, our bag limit was increased at virtually the same time gobbler decoys and fanning began to catch on. Personally, I think it was a perfect storm in this area. Regardless, there's not a "do nothing" option when declining populations are involved.

Nothing to do with ethics. If your population is stable or growing, keep riding that horse as long as possible.

[870FaceLift]

Fair chase is using calls and woodsmanship to hunt and kill turkeys.  Using any type of visual aid gives the hunter an unfair advantage.  Not fair to the turkey, disrespectful to the turkey and cheating as far I am concerned.  Legal and ethical are 2 totally different things. 

Everyone can hunt how they choose to within the law; fair chase is not a big priority for the state game departments, selling licenses and tags is.

Waterfowl hunting relies heavily on visual aids.  Does that standard also apply there?  I don't really have an opinion on "fanning".  I'm not going to do it but I have shot birds while using decoys.  I don't bait nor hunt over feeders.  I do hunt deer over food plots. When we talk about "fair chase", I'm more inclined to say that applies to high fences and paying 10K to kill a  200" buck.  My opinion only.

That was my definition of fair chase, too.  I would have a problem with fanning if someone used that method to kill a 1.75'' spurred smoke phase gobbler in a pen.  Then again, the fanning wouldn't be my issue with that situation.

[Farmboy27]

How did fanning get deemed so successful that it is "disrespectful" to the sport and unethical? Most of those who oppose the method are adamant about never having used it and never will, so where are their statistics coming from? YouTube? Sure if you google it most every video you find is going to show a successful fanning attempt, because who wants to post a video of themselves crawling out into the field and a bird running away? If you've never tried it how can you conclude that it works over 90% of the time? By that logic anyone that watches a TV show could easily conclude that the sport itself is disrespectful to the bird, because all they have to do is pile 3 or 4 guys behind a tree with a couple cameras, make a few calls, watch the bird charge in, then shoot it in the head. They have 3 or 4 of those scenarios to display on every weekly show, so turkey hunting must be like shooting fish in a barrel...

I've not tried it, but I did witness it to an extent once. I met a buddy at lunch one day, and he was telling me that they tried to crawl behind a deke on two gobblers and got busted at 60 yards. I didn't really believe him, because I wasn't familiar with the technique and figured it was another one of his tall tales. We hunted together that afternoon, and late in a very unsuccessful day I challenged him to sneak on a couple hens we saw to call his bluff. Well he did, and he actually got into range (obviously didn't shoot due to legality), so that proved to me that it can work. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of hunters couldn't have cowered behind that deke and duck-walked 200 yards like he did. I know you won't see me doing it! That in itself is far more challenging than sitting on a cushion up against a tree. Furthermore his success rate that day was 0% on gobblers and 50% on turkeys in general. I know several hunters that boast a success rate well above 50% with "old school" tactics, so how is fanning so unfair? (Not a good sample size I know, just further proving my point of relying on hasty generalizations and logical fallacies as "proof".) Not to mention had he killed a bird on that stalk it would have been after walking 3-5 miles on 3 farms over several hours, then executing a physically challenging stalk. Sounds like taking candy from a baby....

I usually pass over these hot topics, but lately there have been several new guys asking innocent questions looking for advice, only to be condemned an unethical, non-steward of the turkey hunting world. It's crazy. There's nothing out there that's going to work 100% of the time. I guess you guys believe in the banjo minnow, too. You'd probably also label my Pawpaw an unethical fisherman because he used worms and "minners" to bring home a mess of fish. The antis and activists love to see division within the hunting world. It just gives them a stronger foothold to further their agenda. Calling legal hunters unethical and disrespectful fuels the same fire that calling a semi-automatic rifle an "assault rifle" does.

My hope is that we can all enjoy this awesome privilege that God has blessed us with. We don't have to agree on what methods we choose to use, but we also don't need to shed negative light on legal hunting methods and give the activists ammunition against us. Hold onto your opinions, that is your right, just choose how you express them carefully. Turkey season is upon us across most of the country right now, I wish you all the best of luck.

100% agree. Sure all the videos are going to show successful hunts. Heck, all turkey hunting videos show mostly successful hunts. Does everyone so against fanning believe that the guys on the calling videos are successful all the time? 

[g8rvet]

Seriously though, good discussion.  Especially like that ethics should be more restrictive than law-but shooting a crippled duck while still moving is a great example.  Illegal, but ethical. 

I was making the point that law and ethics don't always equate. Something can be legal yet unethical, at least from one's personal viewpoint. I believe anyone reading this thread can think of examples. The reverse of that is also true. Regardless, ethics are a personal thing, and I'm in no position to judge others who hunt in a legal manner. I've killed birds using a fan, so I certainly can't claim some moral superiority. The fact that I felt I'd done something wrong after the second bird I killed via the method points to it probably being the wrong choice for ME; others could feel differently, and I'm fine with that.

I understood and was commenting on a perfect example (chasing a cripple) where you discussed doing something illegal, but highly ethical.  I have done it many times.

Another great example comes from duck hunting.  If you shoot 5 birds (say Ringnecks) and have them in hand.  You then shoot your final duck and it falls.  You make a concerted, immediate and vigorous attempt to find the bird.  If you are unable to find the bird, after meeting those criteria, it is perfectly legal to shoot another bird.  You never reduced the bird to possession, but made a definite attempt to do so.  In most cases in my life, I count that bird if I know I killed it. That is my ethics.  I have gone ahead and shot another bird on occasion.  On the flip side, if by some odd stroke I shot another bird and later the first bird popped up dead and I found it, I would carry it out and face the consequences. Also illegal, but ethical in my opinion. 

Another example.  Catching Redfish.  I have culled one from my livewell (illegal) when I later caught and gut or gill hooked one that I knew was going to die as long as the first was lively and healthy.  Illegal?  yes  Unethical?  I don't think so. 

Applying the use of a fan is the same thing to me. If it is legal, then it is up to the individual to decide if it is ethical TO THEM.  I know what my opinion is on hunting methods and I do not feel that I have some set of moral superiority to all other turkey hunters that my ethics should apply to all others or they are beneath me if they chose a different set of ethics.  Let's face it, if meat is the only goal, why not just go buy one at Publix? Would be cheaper and less effort. 

I have a friend who's dad hunted them with a rifle on his lease from a box stand.  No baiting.  Is that unethical?  Does it make a difference that he had Parkinson's so bad that he had a hard time walking and needed to steady a rifle on a bench to make a clean shot?  Does the turkey give two craps if it dies via rifle or shotgun? 

[Bill Cooksey]

g8rvet,
Great post, and I agree.

All,
I hope I haven't come off as if judging others as that wasn't my intent. My thoughts on fanning, gobbler decoys and the effectiveness of each is based on personal experience. I'm not advocating a nationwide ban, but I've tried to express why I think a regional ban could be a positive thing in very specific cases. Otherwise, the ethics of their use is up to the individual. Personally, I felt as though I cheated the turkey when I used them, but that's just me, and I was well along as a turkey hunter before I gave either a try. In all honesty, there was a time I would have been happy, and proud, to do anything legal to kill a bird. I won't look down on others for doing the same.